linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: traps and do

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:24:09 +0530
From:	Jaswinder Singh <jaswinder@...radead.org>
To:	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	kernelnewbies <kernelnewbies@...linux.org>,
	kernel-janitors <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: traps and do_traps under one hood

Hello Alexander,

On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 15:51 +0200, Alexander van Heukelum wrote:

> 
> I think moving the declarations to a header file is a good thing,
> but I don't think mach_traps.h is a suitable place. 

I CC new patch to you : [PATCH] x86: Introducing asm-x86/traps.h

> The definitions
> of the functions are in entry_32.S and entry_64.S, so I would suggest
> making a new header include/asm-x86/entry.h. Some other ENTRY's
> (like system_call and some xen-specific ones) would then also fit
> in this header.
> 
> What do you think?

I did this for traps_32.c and traps_64.c because they are complaining
that traps are defined but not declared.

Thank you,

Jaswinder Singh.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/